With the news that President Obama will nominate Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, commentators and journalists are eagerly digging through her writings and speculating on how her addition would change the makeup of the high court. This being a site for working moms, I feel compelled to express my disappointment that she doesn't have children.
No, I have nothing again people who choose not to have children. And I'm not trying to pit working mothers against non-mothers. Certainly, I think that President Barack Obama should name the individual he believes is most qualified for the position, and not choose based on gender, race, lifestyle choices or other personal traits.
But the nomination of Elena Kagan is another reminder of the "maternal wall" that women face when trying to combine a high-powered career with motherhood. The legal field is especially notorious for losing talented women as they start to form families. So until working mothers can as easily fill top government positions as working fathers, I will keep banging this drum.
I'm not alone. Last month, Peter Beinart made a compelling argument for the benefits of naming a mother to the Supreme Court in a piece on the Daily Beast, such as providing a role model for our young children. It's not the only reason to consider someone for a high court seat. But it sure would be nice.
Photo credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Follow me on Twitter | Join my LinkedIn Group | Connect with me on Facebook
More:
I was kidding the other day that Beinart must have read the post I wrote about the same idea when Sotomayor was nominated!
http://www.punditmom.com/2009/05/the-supreme-court-needs-a-mom